{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 120121009","title":"COLUMBIA GAS TRANSMISSION, LLC — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2012-04-06","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 191.5(a), 192.605.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120121009.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120121009.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120121009","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/120121009","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving COLUMBIA GAS TRANSMISSION, LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 191.5(a),  192.605. The case was opened on 2012-04-06 and is reported as closed as of 2012-12-27. Proposed civil penalty: $32,500. Assessed civil penalty: $0. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n120121009_Final Order_12272012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120121009/120121009_Final%20Order_12272012.pdf\n\n120121009_Final Order_12272012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120121009/120121009_Final%20Order_12272012_text.pdf\n\n120121009_NOPV_PCP_04062012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120121009/120121009_NOPV_PCP_04062012.pdf\n\n120121009_NOPV_PCP_04062012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120121009/120121009_NOPV_PCP_04062012_text.pdf\n\n120121009_Operator Response_05042012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120121009/120121009_Operator%20Response_05042012.pdf\n\n120121009_Final Order_12272012_text.pdf\n\nDECEMBER 27, 2012\nMr. Robert C. Skaggs, Jr.\nPresident & CEO\nNiSource, Inc.\n801 East 86th Ave.\nMerrillville, Indiana 46410\nRe: CPF No. 1-2012-1009\nDear Mr. Skaggs:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It withdraws one\nallegation of violation and issues a warning to NiSource Gas Transmission and Storage\nCompany with respect to one other alleged violation. This case is now closed. Service of the\nFinal Order by certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise\nprovided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nJeffrey D. Wiese\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. Michael Hoffman, Manager – System Integrity, NiSource Gas Transmission and\nStorage Company, 1700 MacCorkle Avenue, Charleston, WV, 25314\nMr. Byron E. Coy, Eastern Region Director, OPS\nMr. Alan Mayberry, Deputy Associate Administrator for Field Operations, OPS\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\n\n\n\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\n__________________________________________\nIn the Matter of )\nNiSource Gas Transmission & Storage ) CPF No. 1-2012-1009\nCompany, )\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n__________________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nOn October 5, 2010, and June 3, 2011, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, representatives of the\nWest Virginia Public Service Commission (WV PSC), acting as agent for the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),\nconducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of NiSource Gas Transmission & Storage\nCompany’s (NGTSC or Respondent) SM-80 facilities, operated by Columbia Gas Transmission,\nLLC, and its records in West Virginia. NGTSC is a subsidiary of NiSource, Inc.1 The Columbia\nGas Transmission system consists of approximately 12,000 miles of pipeline, transporting an\naverage of three billion cubic feet of natural gas per day through 10 states.2\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Eastern Region, OPS (Director), issued to NGTSC, by\nletter dated April 6, 2012, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Civil Penalty (Notice),\nwhich also included a warning pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.205. In accordance with\n49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that NGTSC had violated 49 C.F.R. § 191.5,\nproposed assessing a civil penalty of $32,500 for the alleged violation, and warned Respondent\nto take appropriate corrective action or be subject to future enforcement action.\nNGTSC responded to the Notice by letter dated May 4, 2012 (Response). NGTSC contested the\nallegation, offered additional information in response to the Notice, and requested that the\nproposed civil penalty be reduced or eliminated.\n1 NiSource, Inc., Annual Report (Form 10K), at Exhibit 21 (February 24, 2012).\n2 NiSource Gas Transmission and Storage Home Page, http://www ngts.com/en/home.aspx (last visited November\n5, 2012).\n\n\n\n2\nFINDING OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 191, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 191.5(a), which states:\n§ 191.5 Telephonic notice of certain incidents.\n(a) At the earliest practicable moment following discovery, each\noperator shall give notice in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section\nof each incident as defined in § 191.3.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 191.5(a) by failing to make a telephonic\nreport of an incident on pipeline SM-80 at the earliest practicable moment following discovery.\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that an incident occurring on July 16, 2008, but was never\nreported by NGTSC to the National Response Center (NRC). At the time of the event, 49 C.F.R.\n§ 191.3 defined the term “Incident” as follows:\nIncident means any of the following events:\n(1) An event that involves a release of gas from a pipeline or of\nliquefied natural gas or gas from an LNG facility and\n(i) A death, or personal injury necessitating in-patient hospitalization;\nor\n(ii) Estimated property damage, including cost of gas lost, of the\noperator or others, or both, of $50,000 or more; . . . .3\nAccording to the Notice, an NGTSC crew hit a consumer tap line operating at about 693 psig, at\nwhich point NGTSC blew down more than an estimated $50,000 worth of gas in order to stop\nthe resulting leak. Because the amount of the gas lost exceeded $50,000, the Notice alleged that\nNGTSC was required to make a telephonic report of the incident. In response to subsequent\ninformation requests from the WV PSC, NGTSC provided information indicating a total cost of\n$106,544 for the gas lost from the damaged consumer tap line and from purging the transmission\nline.\nIn its Response, NGTSC argued that the $50,000 reporting threshold in 49 C.F.R. § 191.3 did not\napply to gas lost due to an intentional or optional blow down.4 NGTSC contended that the\nallegation in the NOPV reflected an incorrect application of the regulation because it included\nthe cost of gas that was evacuated from the pipeline due to an intentional blow-down for the\npurpose of making a repair.\nAccording to NGTSC, a small leak at a weld intersection had occurred as a result of certain\n3 Section 191.3 was amended effective November 26, 2010, and redefined the term “Incident” to cover “[e]stimated\nproperty damage of $50,000 or more, including loss to the operator and others, or both, but excluding cost of gas\nlost.”\n.\n4 Response at 2.\n\n\n\n3\nmaintenance work done on July 16, 2008. The amount of gas escaping from the leak was\nminimal and the condition did not cause a risk to public safety. The amount of gas lost was\nconservatively estimated at less than 30 MCF and the value of the gas lost from the leak was\n$279.41. In addition, the cost of the repair, including labor, equipment and materials, was less\nthan $2,000. The total property damage due to the repair plus the gas lost as a result of the\nincident was less than the $50,000 incident threshold. Therefore, NiSource argued, the event\ndid not meet the definition of “Incident” under the regulations in effect at that time or now.\nI agree. Upon review of the record, it is apparent that the estimated property damage was\ndetermined by including the gas lost during the blow down and therefore reached the $50,000\nthreshold for incident reporting. However, by the agency’s own guidance (i.e., PHMSA Form F\n7100.2 (1-2002)), the reporting threshold has not been interpreted as including the cost of gas\nincurred as part of routine maintenance. Specifically, the general instructions for the incident\nreport form indicate that a release of gas “during maintenance or other routine activities need not\nbe reported if the only reportable criteria met is losing gas of $50,000 or more as defined in\n191.3(1)(ii).”5 Under Part A – General Report Information on Form F 7100.2 (1-2002), it further\nstates that “[f]acility repair, replacement, or change that is not related to the incident but the\noperator does for convenience is not to be included.” Therefore, I find that the blow down and\nsubsequent gas loss should be considered as part of the pipeline’s routine maintenance activities\nto repair the leak.\nAccordingly, I find that NGTSC did not violate § 191.5(a) because the leak did not meet the\ndefinition of “incident” that would require a report. Based upon the foregoing, I hereby order\nthat this Item and the proposed penalty be withdrawn.\nWARNING ITEM\nWith respect to Item 2, the Notice alleged a probable violation of Part 192 but did not propose a\ncivil penalty or compliance order for this item. Therefore, this is considered to be a warning\nitem. The warning was for:\n49 C.F.R. § 192.605 (Item 2) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to follow its\n[Operation and Maintenance Procedure 200.01.02, section 3.4,] that required\nidentification tags on emergency valves. The NGTSC pipeline SM-80 Martha\nvalve setting had no identification tags on the following critical valves:\n1. One main line valve;\n2. Two bypass valves; and\n3. Two blow down valves.\nNGTSC presented information in its Response showing that it had replaced the missing tags\nlisted above and had instituted an initiative to identify missing identification tags on critical\n5 Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, Pipeline Safety Community Forms,\nhttp://phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/library/forms (last visited November 5, 2012).\n\n\n\n4\nvalves throughout its system.6 If OPS finds a violation of this provision in a subsequent\ninspection, Respondent may be subject to future enforcement action.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49\nC.F.R. § 190.5.\n___________________________________ __________________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\n6 Response at 3.","truncated":false,"body_characters":10030}